(originally posted 4/26/2011) The Pacer is the poster child of how questionable ideas and good intentions go awry.

In 1971, scrappy little AMC was faced with a dilemma: how to capture buyers looking to downsize, when they were incapable of actually building a truly downsized car. Yup; there was no way AMC could tool up to build a genuine compact car, like the Vega and Pinto. So the solution was to stop pretending, like the Gremlin (CC here) that preceded the Pacer.

And the pregnant answer was to build the world’s first wide-body compact, a segment nobody had ever identified before, much less pined for. To add to its zestiness, why not break all the styling molds with acres of glass and asymmetrical doors. And then just for good measure, stick a rotary engine in it. As we’ve seen repeatedly, desperation is the mother of bizarre disasters.

AMC explained the Pacer this way: it was “the first car designed from the inside out”. How about the first compact designed for the obese? The rationale and implication was that a segment of Americans just weren’t going to be happy giving up their accustomed hip, elbow and love handle room for a cramped import or a Pinto.

So it really started that way: cut everything away from AMC’s extravagantly-long Matador mid-size coupe except the seats and then design the shortest body possible around them. I’ve long had the desire to take a torch and cut away about six feet on both ends of a ’71 Cadillac coupe. Dick Teague, my hero, had the same impulse and actually did it (not with the Caddy, sadly). Too bad Cadillac didn’t do the same thing for the Cimarron; now that would have been something memorable.

Then AMC signed a licensing contract with Curtiss-Wright for the rights to design and build a rotary engine to stick under the resulting stubby hood. When the idea of actually developing and tooling up for a Wankel started looking onerous (you think?), a deal with GM to buy their rotaries was cut. God, I love AMC. Too bad GM chickened out on that brilliant plan at the last minute. If they had actually built it, it would have undoubtedly made the Vega engine look like a paragon of durability.

But GM’s rude cancellation of their rotary program created a nasty little-big problem for AMC; the Pacer was designed just for that compact little five-gallon bucket sized engine, and there was nothing to take its place except the big AMC family of venerable cast-iron inline sixes, since AMC sold back the production tooling of the 3.8 V6 to GM some years earlier.

Nothing else to do but roll up the sleeves and get out the acetylene torches and start cutting away; that six just had to fit somehow. Probably just as well in the end, even if the “compact” Pacer ended up weighing “an astounding 3425 lbs” (C/D) when it actually hit the road with a few options. An obese compact for obese compact-haters. Back then, that kind of weight was pushing right into mid-sized car territory.

Teamed up with a choice of two de-smogged sixes (3.8 or 4.2 liter) that mysteriously both made 100hp (couldn’t they have coaxed maybe 5 more ponies out of the optional engine?), performance was predictably flaccid. Later, a two barrel six found those extra few horses, and when the 304 V8 was finally wedged in, it gave a boost, but by then the Pacer was already dead meat anyway.

The Pacer was a wild gamble in hoping that a market niche existed for a highly truncated mid-sized coupe without a proper trunk: turns out it didn’t. Its Jetsons-styling novelty gave it decent first-year sales of 145k units, then interest quickly withered away. Lousy gas mileage hastened the Pacer’s demise. American’s love for the latest toy is usually cut short either by ADD or the toy’s all-too obvious shortcomings. Or both.

Predictably, the American car magazines gushed over the Pacer, especially Motor Trend: “Suddenly its 1980: American Motors’ new Pacer is the freshest, most creative, most people oriented auto born in the U.S. in 15 years” Well, by 1980, folks had long moved on to genuinely modern small FWD cars (think Honda) that could actually be comfortable, have real trunk space, be zippy, and didn’t get 15 mpg. The fact that the Accord arrived the same year that Pacer sales shriveled is perhaps no mere coincidence.

Small Cars had this to say on the Pacer’s styling: “admiration was an obvious reaction…the knowledgeable product writers knew without being told that they were privileged to be there to see something new in automobile design.” Privileged “knowledgeable product writers” indeed. Admittedly, the Pacer’s design was refreshingly different, and Porsche blatantly cribbed the greenhouse for its 928.

Car and Driver’s Don Sherman was distinctly more prescient in his assessment: “our first real urban transporter…There is, of course, the chance of monumental failure; it might be another Tucker ahead of its time or a pariah like the Marlin. But…with its high priority on comfortable and efficient travel and absence of Mach 2 styling, [it] at least seems right for the current state of duress. Consider this bold offering from AMC a test: Are we buying cars for transportation yet, or are they still social props?” Did you really have to ask, Don?

Road and Track offered this more objective take: “bold, clean and unique…even when it’s going 60 mph is looks as if it’s standing still..[Seems like they got that backwards, or were they saying something of significance with that?].” but noted that, even with the test car’s optional front disc brakes, “in the usual panic-stop tests…our driver had one of his most anxious moments ever as the Pacer screeched, skidded and demanded expert attention at the steering wheel to keep from going altogether out of control. The histrionics are reflected in long stopping distances from highway speeds… [The car’s] engineering—old-fashioned and unimaginative in the extreme—does not match the perky design”, which the magazine declared “most attractive to look at and pleasant to sit in.” Especially when its not moving.

The British The Motor just said: “We test the Pacer – and wish we hadn’t.”

Am I being harsh with the poor misunderstood Pacer? Oh well, it all seemed like a good idea in 1971, when AMC stylist Dick Teague started on his latest project after the almost equally adventurous and unsuccessful Matador coupe, which followed the not-so bold and daring Gremlin. Don’t get me wrong; I love Teague, and his playful and risk-taking approach. He did things no one else was doing, and he handled the dreadful 5 mph bumpers masterfully. Its just that he set himself to such difficult and improbable tasks, and then solved them with such curious solutions. But he’s certainly enriched our automotive stylistic history.

The Pacer arrived with a number of shortcomings. The pathetically tiny luggage compartment was a particular sore spot, and AMC made the remarkably heroic effort to address that with an extended Pacer, a so-called wagon. Realistically, it was more like what should have been built in the first place, but in any case, it was too late to save the Pacer’s rapid crash. As was the slip of the surgeon’s scalpel that created the first automotive upper-lip lift.

Fitting its futuristic garb, and outfit called Electric Vehicle Associates converted Pacers to EVs, using eighteen six-volt golf-cart batteries for a claimed 53 mile range. Now that would be quite a find. Well, finding this pretty solid Pacer X wasn’t a bad find either; it’s been a while since there’s been one on the streets here. And this one was looking for a new home too; only $1500. What a bargain for a genuine mid-seventies period piece, an authentic Dick Teague original. Party on, Wayne!

(This is a CC Rerun, and no, it’s not still For Sale. I talked to the seller recently, and he said it went very quickly, not surprisingly, given the $1500 asking price. I should have snapped it up)

63 Comments

A big problem with the Pacer was that AMC couldn’t figure out what it was supposed to be. It was initially supposed to be a more economical alternative to mid-size and compact coupes so popular at that time, but it gained weight during the development process.

When it was introduced, AMC then pitched it as the “first wide, small car,” except that its mileage was usually worse than comparable contemporary intermediates, and it was considerably more expensive than other small cars.

Those looking for small cars were put off by the mileage and the price, while people interested in an intermediate couldn’t figure out why they should pay virtually the same price for a car that was slower, thirstier and more spartan than a Cutlass Supreme or Torino or Malibu.

It’s interesting how quickly the bloom was off the rose with the Pacer. It sold well for about one year (it debuted in February 1975) and then sales quickly collapsed. The 1977 wagon version led to a brief revival of sales, but by 1979, sales had essentially dwindled away to nothing. The ugly 1978 model, with the bump on its nose to accommodate the 304 V-8 in the engine bay, didn’t help.

I have always wondered how the Pacer would have turned out if it had been developed by a company with the resources to give it a modern drivetrain with a front-wheel-drive layout and a lighter, stronger body. The styling, to be honest, isn’t that unattractive…it just promises much more than the car can deliver.

I remember Road Test magazine saying something to the effect that the Pacer had the body of Sophia Loren and the soul of a cleaning woman! (Road Test’s review of the Pacer was very negative. They were especially critical of the brakes.)

And, it’s worth noting that, one of the true, modern small car alternatives to the Pacer by 1980 was…the GM X-car. Which were a big deal in 1979 and 1980, as they offered a modern, front-wheel-drive layout in a very trim package. Of course, in retrospect, going from a Pacer to an X-car was a perfect example of jumping from the frying pan right into the fire, but we didn’t know that in April 1979!

Yup, AMC was decidedly confused as to the intent of the Pacer. This was partly the result of a fast-changing marketplace. One reason the Pacer weighed so much was because of a new front subframe that promised a softer and quieter ride. When the Pacer was first being developed that was supposed to be more important to buyers than gas mileage. But then the embargo hit, CAFE was passed and downsizing ruled the Pacer obsolete after a remarkably short production run.

In retrospect, the Pacer was best suited as a personal coupe for postmodern types. By 1978 you couldn’t sell it on anything else but distinctive styling. Yet AMC thought a utilitarian wagon was going to help. Huh?

A major champion of the Pacer was apparently Gerald Meyers, a supposed “product” guy who also pushed for the wankel engine and the AMX/3. I’ve been pretty hard on Roy Chapin, but Meyers made meaningful contributions to AMC’s demise yet was bumped upstairs to CEO in 1977 when Chapin retired.

The thing I’m most curious about is what AMC intended to do to amortize the Pacer’s considerable development costs. Were they planning to base a line of larger family cars on that platform? If so, it would be interesting to see sketches of what Teague had in mind.

I remember that AMC had a Pacer “van” concept as part of the Concept 80 show. That was the only addition to the Pacer line-up I’ve ever seen from AMC. The design simply didn’t lend itself to additional body styles, which makes one wonder what Meyers was thinking when he pushed the Pacer. What AMC needed was an updated Gremlin and Hornet, not this car.

Actually, the Pacer was re-engineered wider to accomodate the Rear Wheel drive setup. Originally it was designed to be frontwheel drive with the GM wankel engine (that failed and was dumped) and essentially the same setup GM was using in the Citation, etc. There is a link to the original models made in ’72 that are in Germany.

It’s an improvement,they look like a life size Tonka toy in a good way.Pacers have a French Bulldog charm about them,I’d still rather have the 4 legged one than the 4 wheeled one.If it wasn’t for the Pacer & it’s ugly sister the Gremlin AMC would have been dead even sooner,these cars bought a stay of execution for all their faults

Part of the Pacer’s weight issue is from safety standards. From what I understand the Pacer was designed for tougher crash standards that never came (GM, Ford, etc said they couldn’t meet them and they were dropped). The Fiat X1/9 is similarly heavier than you’d think as well.

Yes it is at least visually interesting (which is more than can be said for many cars out there today.) I did love one old car history I read that said the I6 fit in the Pacer’s engine bay like a “duck’s nose inside of a sock.” For some reason that always made me laugh.

If you take a look at my avatar picture, you’ll notice that it’s a 1976 Pacer, in glorious hospital green. This picture was taken last summer before it was sold to an entrepreneur from Green Bay, Wisconsin, who specializes in taking AMC Pacers and making mobile NFL “football helmets” out of them. I purchased this particular Pacer about three years ago. My daughter, who was 16 at the time, wanted a unique car that attracted attention. We bought the car for $2400 from a retired gentlemen from Central Point, Oregon. He had found the car sitting in a barn with about 40,000 miles on it. When we bought it it had about 46,000 miles. Although it was low mileage, it was far from perfect. The seats were completed shredded, leaving just foam rubber to sit on. The driver’s side door panel had disintegrated to the point that it was just hanging on to the door by a screw or two. What made it worse, the interior door handle had sheared off, requiring the driver to roll down the window and open the door using the outside door handle. Over the next few years, I easily spent several thousands of dollars just keeping the vehicle minimally operable. I did purchase an interior door handle on Ebay for $85, but I was afraid to remove the door panel–for fear that it would disintegrate into tiny hard plastic pieces. It did attract attention. And my retro-IMO-hipster daughter reveled in its quirky irony. When she eventually moved to S.E. Portland, and settled amongst the hipsters and techno-geeks, she was practically a movie-star. People would honk, wave, smile and even have her pull over. When my daughter indicated an interest in going back to college (at the U of Oregon), I insisted that the car go. I was not going to support a student in college and an AMC Pacer. When the Wisconsin entrepreneuer drove her car away, my daughter burst into tears. Mourning the loss of her stardom, and the fact that her first car would be be transformed into something she despised-an NFL football helmet on wheels. In a sad postscript, I received a letter from the Green Bay police department about a month later. They were threatening to sell the car in auction if I didn’t pay the accumulated storage fees. Apparently the car had been abandoned.

What a great story. I commend your daughter for driving something interesting. Hopefully she will be able to find an interesting and durable vehicle after she is done school. Sounds like your Pacer ended up with a fate worst than a football helmet in the end though – probably scrapped.

It never occurred to me that the Pacer’s oddball styling had a pedigree in previous Teague designs… but having read the Rambler American CC just a couple of days ago, there is definitely a resemblence in the grille and sunken headlights.

Paul, you are covering quite a bit of my automotive history here on CC! When I was born, in 1981, I came home from the hospital in a ’77 Pacer. Later,my Baptismal candle melted into the fabric under that fishbowl in the back..Now there’s an omen!…One of my earliest memories is of watching its bloated carcass being towed from our house. My dad had just purchased its replacement- a 1985 Toyota Tercel wagon.

I only know the Porsche connection due to the (or one of the) designers of the XR4TI being a guest on Top Gear a few years ago and saying this. They even had a 928 and a Merkur side by side in the studio. Both good looking cars.
The Pacer though….

I’ve owned several XRs and 1 Scorp and never knew of the 928 connection. The only difference between the “world” Sierra and the XR is the US. rollover standard and the inability to overcome exchange rates.

When I was in university in the early 80’s, a friend of a friend had a Pacer we lovingly referred to as the Spacer. It was called this because he built a small console between the front seats that hid a bong with a couple of hoses. It was a very popular car for long road trips. Or so I was told 😉

Another of my friends bought one of these for his wife to drive. He managed to find a perfectly cherry (but olive green in color) 1975 model in 1985. But it did have some elderly car issues, most of which I’ve forgotten by now, but I do remember helping to change out a radiator. It seems to me there was zero clearance between the rad and the fan, and less space to undo the auto tranny coolant lines. Anything you did under the hood of that car required you be a combination of Chinese acrobat and Indian contortionist. Big beefy midwestern types like myself just swore a lot.

The cars did ride well and were comfortable, but really didn’t compete against the smaller cars. It’s something of a shame, I like AMC’s, I don’t know that I’d buy a Pacer.

I’ve often wondered if – after failing to secure a Wankel from Curtiss-Wright and later, GM – did AMC ever approach Mazda as a supplier of Wankel engines? Or even NSU, although the Ro80 would wind down production a few years later.

They had also concluded that it was too rough for anything but truck/SUV use (where they’d replaced it with their own inline six) and didn’t want to invest the kind of money GM eventually put into smoothing it out.

I remember looking at the Electric Vehicle Associates Pacer as a kid in the local library’s copy of ‘1984 World Cars’, and thinking I was looking into the future. Judging by the Honda CR-Z, I guess that wasn’t too far off base.

IMO, no Pacer has the cool factor of a 304 V8 Gremlin X. Which raises the question–why did AMC pin its hopes on a car built around the concept of a compact cut from a big-car chassis, after the Gremlin had offered pretty much the same package and failed?

That’s one reason AMC failed , producing cars like the Pacer, Matador Coupe , and the Marlin during the 60s. Had they thought conservatively and just used the Hornet basic chassis through the 70s, the company might still be around. Instead of the Pacer, they should have introduced the AMC Spirit in 75, instead of in 79, which was the restyled Gremlin on the same chassis. I have an interesting book, ” American Motors, The Last Independent “, by Patrick Foster. Covers AMC from the start all the way to the end, when it was sold to Chrysler. The author gives his insight as to how AMC could have stayed in business. A small independent auto company needs to think conservatively, and not try and be GM and Ford coming out with many different models. Stick with the same design and style for many many years, like the VW bug and Volvo.

If I test drove a Pacer in 1975, the impracticality of the car would tell me to avoid it.
Let alone the poor space utilization and mileage.
However, those that bought them, were likely heavily drawn by the futuristic styling and to be different. I think impulse buying played a great deal in the first year sales success.
Even if the bugs in the Wankel engine were worked out. It is such an inefficient car design. The exterior looked fresh, but the underpinnings were dated when it was launched.

I am still ingrigued by the Pacer after all these years. I once dated a girl who owned one, a blue one with the Navajo cloth interior. I think it is the only car I was ever actually embarrassed to be seen in.

My least favorite feature of the car from inside was those ridiculous molded plastic upper door panels that were there because the windows were too tall to roll into the doors. I guess someone figured that resting your elbow too high on the sharp edge of the plastic panel was more comfy than resting your elbow too high on the sharp edge of the door glass.

It is really interesting to compare AMC’s last gasps with Studebaker’s With all of Stude’s stuff, we see great vision but limited money. With AMC, it was the opposite – there was apparently money to spend on a new car (more than one) but no vision. I guess that is what bothers me most about AMC cars (and Nash cars before that) – Everything about them makes you think they were designed by people aiming at the 35th percentile.

Agree completely. At the time, as a young boy, I found the Pacer ‘weird different’, not ‘cool different’. Even the Hornets with their quirky grilles and very round wheel arches stood out in a quirky way. I found the Matadors looked straight out of the 1960s and very stodgy compared to the Torinos, Malibus and Coronets. Did AMC (Dick Teague) ever try to design a car that would have genuine mass appeal?
Perhaps the Ambassador and Matador, when they first came out. Even the Ramblers had a quirkiness in their style. It adds to their appeal I understand… but they just seemed too different to be widely popular like a Ford Galaxie, say.
When I was a boy in 1974, if somebody used the word “Rambler”, I got visions of post WW2 cars, even though they made them until the late 60s.
I do understand the brand had a great following.

I had a ’73 Hornet hatchback in college. I loved that thing – sharp looking car, especially in arrest-me red. Always carried a spare Chrysler voltage regulator because it ate them for lunch. Every 3 months like clock work…Sears part 1487.

@Dave
OMG, when I read about your voltage regulator, I laughed so hard, having flashbacks to my own AMC issues. In December 1978, I bought my first car, a 1970 Hornet, 304 V8, 60,000 miles, for a whopping 100 dollars. It ate starter solenoids like the teenage me eating burgers. Thankfully, it mounted on top of the right wheel well. I’d pull two screwdrivers out of the glovebox, pop the hood, one screwdriver on each side of the solenoid, cross them, and :::VROOM::: it was off to high school. Or the beach, then school. Sadly, in 1981, it was totaled when a drunk pulled out in front of me. I feel your pain Dave. I’ll always have a special place for that ol’ beater of mine.

There is, of course, the chance of monumental failure; it might be another Tucker ahead of its time or a pariah like the Marlin.

Well, either a pariah like the Marlin or just a punchline like the Gremlin.

The father of my best friend in high school was a successful financial professional of some sort, who always drove a late-model Sedan de Ville. Circa 1976 he and his wife both went on some big-time TV game show (either Let’s Make a Deal, or similar) where they did pretty well. Well enough to win themselves… a brand new AMC Pacer! They got their shiny new Mirthmobile home, but as I recall it didn’t share the driveway with the Caddy for very long. I think the missus used it for supermarket runs a few times, but she probably got tired of being stared-and-pointed at, so they sold it. The family had enough money that they didn’t need the humiliation of being seen in a silly-looking fishbowl of a car just because they got it for free.

Attached: Well-preserved Pacer with 6-cyl, 3-speed manual on the floor, seen at recent car show.

I am a big AMC fan but have never been able to stand the pacer. It and the matador are two cars I never wanted. I guess the gremlin or american with the big six would have been the two I would want the most. I’m not sure there is any requirement to be rational in your preferences. Hope not.

It would have been interesting to poll AMC buyers of these models at the time to see what influenced them…
I am sure it was impulsiveness and just wanting to be different from other car buyers. Even back then, there were many rumours about AMC’s quality.
I remember a neighbour bought a mid 70s Matador coupe in the early 80s.
And I thought to myself… “that thing makes a Duster look so clean and elegant!”
There seemed so much excess bloat on the Pacer and Matador coupe.
A Pacer parked beside a VW Rabbit just looked strange.

My father had a 1976 Pacer DL – Silver with maroon vinyl top, “mag wheels,” and reddish Navajo interior. He traded in a Gremlin for it, so we’ll just say that his taste in cars wasn’t always the greatest. Some of it had to do with him handling the insurance account for AMC, so there was a bit of a soft spot for them. His original color choice was yellow with a black top, like a bumblebee. My mother had to threaten bodily harm for him to settle on the silver.

I vividly remember us shopping for the car, and although he got it for a commuter vehicle, and it seems the mileage was actually lousy, we compared it with the Mustang II and similar small cars. In contrast to those, it really did have a tremendous amount more room, and that factored into the decision.

It seemed to always be in the shop for one thing or another, but he enjoyed the distinctiveness of it (and I must say I do still rather like the original design, before the nose bump, for all its ridiculousness). As for me, I absolutely hated riding in the thing, since I was a kid and was, of course, always stuck in the back seat. It was like riding in a fishbowl with the giant windows everywhere and low belt line. Everyone always stared at me as we drove and there was nowhere to hide! LOL

He eventually traded it in on a…..1981 Olds Omega X-car. Another disaster.

I always liked the look of these. If it actually had great space utilization and mechanicals to go with its foward-thinking looks it would have been appealing, but the way it turned out was all the disadvantages of mediocre Detroit bloatmobiles without the space — a heavy car with junky mechanicals, crap mileage AND a cramped interior.

IMO, the space utilization doesn’t seem all that impressive. For all the width, the interior doesn’t seem to offer much more seating room than a lot of other smaller cars. The rear seat is the worst offender because it sits mostly between the wheel wells. Up front, the thick doors and the bulging door panels take away the outside elbow room.

Uk models were converted to RHD and left with a plywood dash!. Rear passengers had to exit into oncoming traffic and the dam thing was a cheap as a Jag XJ6 and as economical.
Autocar mag called it the worst car they had tested!. That was 1975ish..

First European Pacer show in 2011, in the south of the Netherlands.
Click on the red link “Europacermeeting vindt je hier” on this website for a lot of pictures of Euro Pacers: http://www.europacer.com/Home_NL.htm

I rode in a Pacer in 1977. I was perplexed by the amount of shoulder room there was for each of the front passengers. I felt isolated from the driver. The added space really didn’t enhance the experience. My Fiat 128 was a much tidier package and never made me feel cramped.

Back in the day a friend of mine had one of these with an AMC 343 V8 and auto trans. Even with the increased power I still thought the car was awkward looking but he didn’t seem to care. One thing you can say about the Pacer is, love it or hate it, you could definitely tell what it was when you saw it. Now the only way to tell most cars apart is to look at the name badge.

The Pacer will always have a special place in my heart- it was the last car that my great grandmother (who was taking care of me at the time) bought. I still remember the excitement in her voice telling me that she was getting a new bright red car that was “as big as a Cadillac inside, but nicer” and that “the whole backend raises up” (assumingly referring to the hatchback) and other superlatives. There was weeks of talk and bragging about this new futuristic dream car of hers. Apparently her and my aunt were “known” for only driving Cadillacs, but they had grown too big for her to maneuver in her advanced years. My great aunt had just bought a (’79?) Seville and my GG degraded her, saying how foolish she was and that her car was SO much better and so futuristic. The car arrived and as I remember it was a brownish-red and nothing like I expected from all of the hype. I remember it being very nice inside, and she absolutely BEAMED with pride while driving “Scoots”. Everyone in the family made fun of her and her foible- it was called the “fish bowl” or “the bubble”, later “dieing pac-man” and it was unceremoniously sold after her death for $250 in 1985. The styling has grown on me and I half want one now.

I don’t remember what year it was and she always referred to it as “the super-deluxe model”- I believe it had leather seats (possibly vinyl) and I *swear* I remember something like a brushed stainless steel trim/ “hoop” on the B pillars, despite googling I’ve not seen anything like this- did it exist (maybe dealer add-on) or just a figment of my imagination? I seem to remember it rattling a LOT and it would drive me crazy as a hyper 5 year old, standing on the seat, backward trying to find out what was making the noise flying down the road. It was only 1 piece on the driver’s side, but 2 on the passenger side.

My pal had one in college around 1981–never was embarassed to be seen in-it was a great car and we travelled a lot of kms in it. 2 things I remember as weird–the passenger door was longer than the drivers and trying to reach the last spark plug.

I owned a 1975 Pacer wagon for several years my wife hated it so we decided to junk it instead of getting rid of it I decided to drag race it at the local strip. as it was only a six it was not very fast but i had fun and even wo.n a couple of trophies.Recently i found the shop mqanual for the 75 anyone interestd in purchasing it drop me a email . thanks John

Hi John, I realise your post is a few months old but was wondering if you still had the manual? I live in Australia and they never sold this model here but I have just bought a 1978 model from America and am waiting for it to be shipped over.The manual will come in handy if still available. My family lost everything in the bushfires that raced through the Blue Mountains last year and this car will be my first to replace the classic car collection that I lost that day. I lost a few AMC’s so I have a soft spot for them. I had a 1966 Rambler American convertible and a 1967 Rambler American 4 door sedan, a 1975 Rambler Matador stretched limousine etc.

I owned a Pacer X, six cylinder 3 speed manual. I’m 6′ 3″ and it was the only compact car at the time in which I was comfortable with enough headroom and leg room. I drove a fair amount on business and found the car very comfortable. Yes it could have been faster. I had really wanted a Honda but it didn’t have enough interior room for me. I was a fan of the Pacer to such an extent that a friend bought one on my praise. I think the car has been unjustly maligned.